Submitted in partial fulfilment of the entrance exam for the Metropolitan Jurist School, Haversham.

Is Quiberon a monarchy?1000 words or fewer

[Sample model answer]

Monarchy is a lawless condition in which a single man is omnipotent and inviolable. As any man relies on the cooperation of soldiers, officials, and informants to give effect to his orders, and since these persons can choose to cooperate or not, the power of any single man is always less than total. Monarchy is therefore an abstract ideal and not a real condition. In the limiting case, a beggar can call himself a monarch, and write instructions to bemused officials who regard him as insane. In this sense, then, Quiberon is not a monarchy, but nor is or could be any domain.

The more practical description of monarchy is a condition in which a single man has a property right in all the persons and property in some domain, his kingdom. As in any dispute over property, actual enforcement may lag with resources, but a monarch has a right to pursue enforcement of his will over any person or property in the kingdom. A "kingdom" therefore does not differ in essentials from what we call an "estate" (recall the Congregationalist hymn, "...And every man a sovereign be, His home his principality..."). Suppose that a hundred million people signed themselves and their contiguous property into indefinite and unlimited servitude to a single person. This is improbable, but would it be unlawful? No. Would the resulting estate differ in substance from Quiberon, so as to justify assigning to it a different word? No. So while monarchy, the abstract ideal, denies law and is always unlawful, kingdoms may be lawful or unlawful.

Quiberon was established as a kingdom, although certainly an unlawful one, and the government in Quiberon represents itself as an agent of the king. The question, then, is whether Quiberon remains a kingdom. This is complicated in both theory and fact. The present population of Quiberon do not, for the most part, regard themselves as subjects of a king, bound by pledges of fealty, but as citizens of a democracy. And their perception is reflected in the reality that the king does not, and likely cannot, personally exercise his powers. The Quiberois interpretation may therefore by summarised that Quiberon is a monarchy in form, but a democracy in fact.

It is not so simple. Democracy is a condition in which the powers of a king are exercised jointly by all his subjects. However, we arrive at once at a contradiction, because the powers of the king include the power to determine and command the actions of all his subjects. It is possible to imagine a kingdom in which every individual were asked how the kingdom should be administered, but in which there were only one answer he were permitted to give. We are not aware of any living example of this, but it is a limiting case of democracy, which every lesser case of democracy resembles in greater or lesser degree. The answer to the question "who rules in a democracy?" is provided by asking who rules in this limiting case.

Who would rule in such a case? Those who have determined each individual's answer to the question of how the kingdom should be administered. By an iterative process, majority coalitions would outlaw the beliefs of minority coalitions, thus establishing a new baseline of belief. From this new baseline a new majority coalition, representing only a subset of the permitted ideas within the previous majority coalition, would outlaw the beliefs of a new minority coalition, itself representing only views that were previously permitted. This process would continue until a single doctrine, byzantine in its complexity and specificness on the most trivial of matters, remained the only permissible way in which each citizens could exercise "his" share of the king's power. This would be the doctrine of a single man: of a monarch.

Yet clearly Quiberon has not reached this stage, and it is possible that no democracy has nor ever will. This is principally because each iteration is long relative to a human lifespan, and even longer relative to the lifespan of a typical human's political views. A democracy, therefore, like a stock market in a novel and unexpected crisis, exists in a state of institutional chaos. It is always tending toward a stable equilibrium, but the equilibrium towards it is tending is itself unstable. I conclude, therefore, that Quiberon is not a monarchy: it is an anarchy. Quiberon is locked in a perpetual internal struggle for political power, which manifests itself as an ever narrower competition of ideologies, which will end, if it does end, only in renewed monarchy, or else in the destruction of the Quiberois state.

It is perhaps of interest to consider how monarchy may re-emerge in Quiberon, if conditions were right. How would it occur, and what features would it have? Most strikingly, it may not obviously appear to be a monarchy at all. Democratic politics tends to narrow, not widen, permitted opinions, so democracy will likely remain the justification of the state. The hallmark of monarchy in Quiberon will be this narrowness of permitted opinion: newspapers, radio, and television will speak with one voice, and civil society will be subsumed in the state. The state will take control of education, and the quantity and political character of education will increase. The state will either take control of, or eliminate religion. The entire economy will become political, and all activities will be judged for political compliance.

The monarch, when he comes, will not present himself as a monarch, nor necessarily view himself as one. He will be the unfortunate but inevitable result of the greatly narrowed range of candidates who whole-heartedly believe in the greatly narrowed official ideology. To safeguard this ideology, he will jealously contest the succession to the throne. He will be minded to choose the most loyal and reliable candidate himself, and his choice will of course become the only choice that is ideologically sound. This choice will very likely be his son.

[992 words]

<leis2> Otoh i am also an antiquarian so im legitimately interested in how purple dye was made in sidon<leis2> (using mollusks)

Common Law is a customary law system that originated in Praetonia and is used in "the commonwealth": Praetonia, Questers, North Point, and Axum. In these countries the system of law is so important, and different to those of other countries, that it is a defining feature of their societies. In addition, it has been influential in a number of other countries. Tairendia claims to be a part of the commonwealth and to use Common Law, but its interpretation of Common Law is not fully recognised by other Common Law societies.

Who makes the law?

No one! One of the main principles in Common Law is that it is timeless, complete, and universal. What this means is that the law never changes, and can therefore never be changed by any person. There is no legislature in a Common Law society: in fact the idea of a legislature is absurd within the Common Law framework.

So if no one makes laws, what are the laws and where did they come from?

Common Law originated as a religious idea in Praetonia. The "Free Congregationalists" - now the main religious group in Praetonia - believed that all moral judgements should be left to God, and God did not need them to be sorted out on Earth: he would sort them out himself in the afterlife. The Free Congregationalists therefore believed that the law should not make any moral judgements, only prevent people fighting one another and disrupting one another's business.

Common Law has evolved since then, but the range of things over which it claims jurisdiction remains narrow and essentially defensive. It is almost exclusively about property and contracts. Everything is owned by someone, and that someone can decide how it is used. Naturally, he can also give up some of his rights to use his property the way he wants if he agrees to do so: he can make contracts. So in Common Law almost all legal disputes can be reduced to answering the following questions:

1. Who owns this thing?

2. Did he make a contract giving up any of his rights as owner?

3. Does that contract contain the promises that he claims it did?

So, for instance, if there is a dispute over a violent assault in which Mr Smith breaks Mr Jones' arm, the questions may be answered as follows:

1. Who owns the arm? Mr Jones.

2. Did he agree to let Mr Smith break it? No.

In this way we conclude that it was unlawful for Mr Smith to break Mr Jones' arm. Although legal disputes can be much more complex, they are all based on these same simple principles.

How are criminals punished in Common Law?

They aren't. At least, not as such. Remember that all disputes are about property. In the example above, Mr Jones has had his property (his arm) damaged. He cannot break Mr Smith's arm in retaliation, because he doesn't own Mr Smith's arm. What he can demand is compensation for the damage that has been done to him. Almost all ordinary disputes in Common Law are about compensation and most cases that don't involve contracts are settled by exchanging money.

What if I kill someone? My victim can't ask for compensation because he is dead.

This is the one exception: you can execute a murderer. It is also possible to execute someone who has caused bodily harm so severe that, although the victim is still alive, he has reduced quality of life to the extent that it is barely better than being dead. Permanent severe brain damage may fall into this category.

Who enforces all of this?

Common Law asserts total legal equality: there are no court-appointed officers and anyone may form a court. The person demanding compensation must enforce his claim, or employ someone else to do so. No one else can do so (except in the case of murder etc.). In practice, generally a collection agency (usually called a "bailiff company") is hired to do it.

If anyone can form a court, can't you rule whatever you want?

It would be more accurate to say that no one can "rule" anything! Possessing a court judgement does not, in itself, entitle you to seize some property: either you own that property or you don't. A court judgement can be strong evidence that you do in fact own the property. A reputable court with a long track-record of making correct decisions that has judged you own some thing is hard to contradict. But it is not just the reputation of the court: the judgement itself should include a convincing, logical chain of reasoning proving your claim, along with any necessary evidence.

What if you can't do that?

A court will issue a judgement that it can support on the basis of the evidence. It won't necessarily decide that a piece of property definitely belongs to either party. It can say that there is significant doubt. Generally, these sorts of judgements can be "sold" to bailiff companies for less than face value. The bailiffs will then try to collect more evidence to prove the claims. The person against whom the claim is being made (or his insurance company) may also buy the claim to end the dispute for good.

What if I can prove a claim without inviting the person I am making the claim against to defend himself?

That is fine; you don't have to invite him to defend himself. Of course, it may make your claim more credible if you do so, but if other evidence is so overwhelmingly strong that it is unnecessary, you do not have to. Similarly, people do not have to attend court proceedings simply because they have been invited.

What if a court judgement is wrong?

Then you have to give back any property you seize. If you mistakenly execute a supposed murderer, you may yourself be guilty of murder. For this reason, people who are believed to be murderers are not always executed.

So can rich people go around beating and shooting others at will, since they can afford the compensation?

If they can get away with it long enough for the case to go to court. However, there is a problem: people are allowed to defend themselves; if they are clearly under attack they can defend themselves with deadly violence. In Common Law there is a state called "outlawry". An "outlaw" can be lawfully killed by anyone. Outlawry is basically defined as intentional defiance of the law. This includes assaulting people, but it also includes trying to escape or frustrate collection of legitimate compensation, fleeing execution for murder, or defending known criminals. Since outlawry is such a dangerous state to be in, people who are not actually trying to steal from or hurt others unlawfully generally prefer to make very clear that they are willing to discuss their dispute peacefully. If both sides agree, neither can be considered an outlaw, even if they are legally in the wrong in the dispute. This is the main reason why two parties would both attend court at the same time.

What if rich people assembled an army and overpowered anyone who tried to stop them?

In principle that's possible, just as it could be possible under other legal systems. So clearly powerful military organisations that are committed to upholding Common Law are needed. In the commonwealth, most people are members of "military associations", which field conventional military forces. Ultimately, these could be used to suppress any open rebellion against the Common Law. Other organisations, such as the Praetonian Vigilance Committee, could be likened to secret services. The Vigilance Committee in particular states that it will assassinate powerful outlaws, such as state officials but also including rebels against Common Law inside the commonwealth.

What if there are disputes about what is lawful and what isn't? Couldn't associations end up on different sides, leading to civil war?

Yes. This is what happened in Questers. Syndicalism is Common Law in which people lose ownership of property they are not direclty using to anyone who is directly using it. So, a factory defaults to the ownership of its workers from its absentee owners. The Praetonian, North Point, and Questarian Malay parts of the commonwealth disagreed with this interpretation and went to war over it when their property was seized.

How about poor people? Can they commit crimes and get away with it because they have no money to give?

No. The debt exists independent of ability to pay. People who cannot pay debts can therefore by indentured to work off the debt. There are some customary limits on indenture, but ultimately people can be essentially enslaved for life to pay off especially large debts. However, since indenture is often awkward and expensive for the claimant to administer, it is relatively common to make agreements with would-be indentured labourers to replace this form of compensation with something else. This could mean wage garnishing, agreeing to leave a certain area forever, or agreeing to a corporal punishment.

How does Common Law view states?

This question involves some subtlety. Common Law doesn't recognise states as different from any other organisation owned by individuals. In a sense, then, Common Law inherently denies the legitimacy of states: at the very least, it denies their own theory of themselves as legal sovereigns. However, a state doesn't necessarily have to do anything unlawful under Common Law. Suppose that a few people who own land bordering each other form a club in which they agree to vote on the conditions they all need to meet in order to stay on that land. They could call this a legislature, and it would have the traditional powers of a state legislature, but this arrangement would not be unlawful under Common Law. The distinction is that, in Common Law, this is simply a contractual organisation and not a sovereign state.

Of course, most states weren't formed like this. Since most (all?) states were formed by violence, taking land and intimidating people into political institutions, Common Law generally considers them to be unlawful organisations. Furthermore, since they are open and defiant about their actions and intentions, Common Law generally considers them to be outlaw organisations, that can be legally attacked at will by anyone. It is, in general, not unlawful in Common Law to kill state officials, even if they have not committed murder and even if they are not directly threatening the killer.

<leis2> Otoh i am also an antiquarian so im legitimately interested in how purple dye was made in sidon<leis2> (using mollusks)

I read logs of the IRC discussion that took place last night, and it gave me the idea to answer a few of the points that came up. (I would also appreciate any further questions I can add to this FAQ; I think it's a better way to explore the idea of CL than IRC discussion).

Common Law doesn't incorporate stare decisis; doesn't this lead to chaos?

This is a question that seems more important in the abstract than it is in reality. Common Law doesn't incorporate stare decisis as a principle: as I said in the original FAQ, in Common Law legal theory it is "timeless, complete, and universal". People, on the other hand, are not immortal, omniscient, or omnipresent. People can be wrong. In principle, then, it is possible that someone can 'discover' that all previous precedent has been wrong about some issue, which would also retroactively overturn that precedent and all previous judgements based on it. In practice, though, this is extremely rare. Precedent is usually adhered to not because it has to be but because collected reputable precedent reflects the general understanding of what Common Law is. If you want to overturn some precedent, you have to show that you are right and all the previous jurists are wrong. That might be possible; usually it won't be. Overturning a huge body of precedent is an intellectual task on par with discovering a new law of physics.

By way of analogy, in English legal theory all land is held in tenancy from the Crown. You might think this is incredibly important because it gives the Crown tremendous theoretical power over landowners. Citizens of republics (and republican citizens of England) may be outraged to hear this just on principle. In practice, though, it makes very little difference; the system works almost exactly as if land were directly owned by individuals. It is more a curiosity of legal theory than something with enormous day-to-day significance.

Rich countries today do not use customary law systems. You claim your country is rich. Why?

If the implication is that codified law has led to prosperity IRL and customary systems haven't, I think your history is simply incorrect. Lots of countries in 1750 had codified law systems (e.g. Spain, Russia, China). The industrial revolution started in the Netherlands and Great Britain, both of which had hybrid customary/codified systems, not in the states that had the most centralised law-making and codified law. The great Civil Law revolution of Napoleon began after the industrial revolution, so I think it is impossible to say that it caused the industrial revolution (and again, in this period the non-Civil Law Anglosphere societies were in the lead, not Civil Law France and Prussia).

What's more, Anglosphere Common Law was a lot more customary at that time than it is today. Anglosphere countries did not have state police, prosecutions were brought privately, and there was very little state ownership of land or statute infringing on property rights. The vast majority of matters were dealt with contractually between individuals. Juries meant (and still mean) that precedent doesn't necessarily determine the outcome of future cases (precedent is probably a more reliable indicator of future practice in Praetonia, if anything). A lot of the things people were describing as damaging or unreasonable about CL were actually present in the conditions that birthed the industrial revolution.

If anything I think the wealth of Praetonia is understated and the wealth of Questers is greatly understated. It incorporates almost all of the useful elements for economic prosperity (contract, private property rights) with very few of the encumbrances of RL states that have those things (high taxes, invasive statute regulation). This is a problem for game reasons: they shouldn't be too strong. I previously had intended to adopt low mobilisation and major political constraints on use of force to deal with the first problem, but everyone else's wealth crept up close to or past mine so I have loosened it significantly. The Questers problem has been solved quite nicely for the time being by the civil war.

Common Law seems likely to be inconsistent and unpredictable because of lack of stare decisis (among other things). Isn't that bad for economic prosperity (among other things)?

A lot was made of the supposed inconsistency of Common Law. In the first place I don't think it would be inconsistent, because judgements that are likely to be contradicted by other jurists are not very useful. The purpose of obtaining a judgement is to be secure in your own knowledge that what you want to do is lawful. If you want to seize someone's property, it doesn't help you to have a piece of paper saying you may lawfully do so when you can't. The person you are seizing the property from can go to another court and get a contradictory judgement. If you shoot him, you likely won't be judged for murder in the same court from which you got your duff judgement. What you want is not a piece of paper saying you can do X, but the knowledge that if you do X you will be widely perceived as having been right to do so (or not).

If genuine uncertainty exists, it is much more likely that this will be stated in the ruling than that courts will issue flatly contradictory judgements. That is the case even if courts feel strongly that their interpretation is right: they are not writing for themselves and have no monopoly on providing judicial opinions; they are providing a service for a client. Courts that provide judgements that get clients into gun battles that are then ruled to be the fault of their client are not likely to stick around for very long. Who would employ such a court? There is a strong incentive for all Common Law courts to agree OR to at least clearly state and precisely define areas of uncertainty.

Now clearly defining areas of uncertainty doesn't make them cease to exist, but examining this problem brings us to another important point: most disputes in the commonwealth are not handled in Common Law courts from legal first principles. They are settled or averted by contract and arbitration. These are ways of bringing certainty to otherwise uncertain situations.

So, suppose you go to a doctor and there is uncertainty about how much you would be owed in cases of malpractice (how much are various parts of a human body, or years of your life, worth? not obvious that there is a single correct answer). The easiest way around this is to simply define how much you would be owed in the contract, or agree to submit the matter to arbitration to some other body that already has a well-defined scheme. Provided both parties agree to it, that scheme does not need to be the one that would be derived from Common Law first principles. All that is important is that everyone agrees. For instance, you could agree to waive all right to compensation for malpractice; this is not the answer that Common Law legal first principles would give in the absence of any agreement, but it might be in your interest to do it if (for instance) it meant medical care would be much cheaper for you, and the chances of malpractice were still acceptably small.

All that is really needed for Common Law to function is certainty who owns the vast majority of property. Once you know who owns what, complex interactions can be handled by contract. Even if Common Law first principles give a totally dysfunctional answer (or, worse, no clear answer), you can short circuit the situation to get the outcome you want by signing a contract. Note that the recent Common Law civil war happened, not because of ethnic disagreements about custom which can be handled by contract, but because Syndicalism created massive uncertainty about who owns what: uncertainty that could not be resolved except by violence.

Doesn't the stability of Common Law require general cultural agreement that Common Law is just and should be preserved?

Sure. Do you know of any system that doesn't? All these systems have had civil wars in the past two centuries: absolute monarchy (Russia), constitutional monarchy (France), democracy (United States). If you look at the written constitutions and statute laws of the United States and Zimbabwe you will not see a tremendous difference. If you look at the actual countries, you will see a tremendous difference. All human institutions are a reflection of the people who create and sustain them. It is no more unreasonable to suggest that people support Common Law than to suggest in 1650 that people would support democracy. It is not obvious that the rich would not instantly launch a coup, that the poor would not loot everything, that the system would not devolve into mindless factionalism, etc. etc., all claims that were made at the time, and all things that have happened - yet huge numbers of people today still regard democracy as the only correct governing system in all circumstances.

For what it is worth, I have put quite a bit of thought into making the self-sustenance of Common Law in the immediate individual interests of the people living within it and not just a question of ideology. First, the associations are not involved in ordinary law enforcement so it is a break with precedent to involve them. What's more, a lot of the association forces are reservists. These are "ordinary" people over whom the association has little real influence. Finally, there are lots of associations. So a conspiracy by the associations to seize power would have to involve enormous numbers of people; it would be essentially impossible to coordinate other than publicly, and if you publicly coordinate it many people will try to stop it. Sure, if such a conspiracy could be coordinated without opposition, the associations could benefit from doing it; by the same token the US Army could benefit from seizing control of the United States in order to divert 80% of the federal budget to the US Army (and again, in some countries this happens - but not all of them). A conspiracy that doesn't involve the associations is very likely to fail simply because the associations will be stronger than the conspirators.

But how about ethnic disputes? Surely different ethnicities won't agree on all laws - how about religious laws?

This goes back to the point about arbitration: what is a law? Common Law is more like a framework for setting up your own particular arrangements. You can buy up a street and say it is only for Muslims and that on this street non-Halal meat is banned, or whatever else you like. Common Law permits local customs to be enforced, it only requires that the local property be owned by the people who want those customs. The Questarian Malays have a king who is able to operate very much like an actual king despite having no special legal powers or status.

Now of course, if tens of hundreds of millions of people who oppose Common Law on principle enter the country, they could launch a civil war. At some point they could outnumber the associations and win that civil war. But that does not seem tremendously different to me to a foreign country launching an invasion. A foreign country, too, could simply be bigger and stronger and overpower a CL polity. If it has enough people that it can throw off just a fraction of its population into Praetonia as immigrants and overpower the natives, it could probably do that already.

<leis2> Otoh i am also an antiquarian so im legitimately interested in how purple dye was made in sidon<leis2> (using mollusks)

The focus of these posts ought to be on clarifying how CL differs from RL systems, and on exploring how those differences impact the customary global order. Countries act based on their understanding of the global order. They send diplomats to other countries because they know that their diplomats will have immunity. Knowing the customs of the SMS global order is a prerequisite to action, which is the core of RP.

The question: "can customary law lead to prosperous outcomes", and others like it, were not aimed at challenging the realism of CL. No one disagrees that the world would be more interesting if CL worked. We have always presupposed that it does. Time and effort should not be wasted on determining whether CL could work.

The intent of the question was to clarify whether CL led to prosperity through a functionally similar mechanism that RL systems did – through a predictable and ordered set of rules, which established a framework for doing business. There is no reason to automatically assume that a system comprised of many independent courts, with no codification or binding precedent, would be predictable. Besides the obvious questions about mechanism of action, we have no RL examples to examine the outcome of such a system. If CL were not predictable, follow-up questions about how the CL mechanism worked, and how that could have affected the economic/global order, would have been appropriate.

Instead, Praetonia’s answer clarified that yes, CL is a predictable and ordered system of law. The “norms” should take note. If CL is predictable, and precedent is generally followed, there must be precedent on issues like treatment of foreign states, foreign businesses, etc. IMO the next step is determining what this precedent is, and further clarifying how the features of CL affect the global order.

To that effect, I have follow-up questions. Some these have been addressed, in part, on IRC, but I think it’s important to get answers in writing:

(1) How do the different associations interact with states? Has their stance evolved over time (say, within the last 100 years)? Do lesser associations carry on separate relations with states, or is there a custom that the EG/equiv. orgs in Questers+NP are the main point of contact on issues of “national” importance? There is a proposal floating around that Reims should be an international diplomatic zone, where CL/norm diplomats can discuss things. Would the commonwealth assocs participate?

(2) How often do associations and states shoot at each other? Are there radical assocs (other than the VC, not sure if that’s considered an assoc anyway) that routinely try to undermine states, or is that uncommon?

(3) How are criminals who abscond to a CL country treated?

And hopefully Chev, Willink, et al. can respond to this next one separately:

(4) How does CL apply in the non-commonwealth, non-Prae/Questers/NP anarchies? To what extent to Prae’s answers above hold true in the non-commonwealth countries?

I want to make a post here since 1) I usually never comment on these things, and 2) North Point is one of the central Commonweal' polities and it needs to be discussed in more detail than we already have.

I have always been fairly skeptical of CL as a thing but that's by the wayside now. For North Point to exist as I have imagined it, it must be descended from Praetonians and so having it as a CL entity is the only way that makes sense. I am fine with this interpretation as I have modified the existing CL framework a bit to fit what I want North Point to be.

The idea is that there is one "controlling" association (the North Point Company - name is TBD and I would love suggestions) with lots of sub-associations that administer the various regions and provide night watch groups etc in those regions. The underlying assumption was always that North Point is the most "normie" of the CL and from the outside it might appear to be a relatively normal state, with a top-level association that functions in a manner very similar to a regular government. This association controls the North Point Security Forces (a professional, full-time military organization) and also several "departments" which provide services to the country (National Weather Service, Geological Survey, etc are a few I've sperged about). I'm sure Praetonia has something like this but nothing in writing.

The North Point Company (the top level association) was founded as a timber cutting venture on the islands and gradually grew to administer all the landmasses that make up the NP archipelago. This leads me to another question: can Associations be derived from a business venture like this? I view the NPC as broadly similar to the East India Company (which had its own private army and basically administered all of India for quite a while in the 1800s).

This brings me to the next point: the Great War. Right now I have a vague idea of NP being invaded by the normie powers, but this has never been fully decided. Should this avenue be explored? If so - how would this affect CL in NP?

Anyway, I'm broadly OK with how the interpretation has been manhandled into place for NP but I want to clarify these things before moving any further. As a sidenote NP is now bigger (with 40mil population) than before and mildly more relevant/important (but not much more).

Quiberon wrote:(1) How do the different associations interact with states? Has their stance evolved over time (say, within the last 100 years)? Do lesser associations carry on separate relations with states, or is there a custom that the EG/equiv. orgs in Questers+NP are the main point of contact on issues of “national” importance? There is a proposal floating around that Reims should be an international diplomatic zone, where CL/norm diplomats can discuss things. Would the commonwealth assocs participate?

Individual associations generally do not maintain permanent representation in states. A few of the very oldest Senland associations may do (e.g. the Eastern Association) but for historical and prestige reasons. In addition associations that cover port regions might do so to handle certain practical issues. The Estates-General will maintain permanent representation in all states where it is permitted; I don't think that the Estates-General would forego direct representation in other states because they can use Quiberon as a go-between, but they would probably attend any important diplomatic forum in Quiberon to which they were invited.

(2) How often do associations and states shoot at each other? Are there radical assocs (other than the VC, not sure if that’s considered an assoc anyway) that routinely try to undermine states, or is that uncommon?

Rarely. Associations that are members of the Estates-General must accept the primacy of the Estates-General in foreign affairs. Obviously the VC isn't part of the Estates-General. (The formation of the Estates-General with its current primacy could be a result of some of the historic wars we've been discussing.)

(3) How are criminals who abscond to a CL country treated?

It depends on their crime. People who flee to CL countries to escape punishment for crimes in states that are unlawful in CL are not necessarily outlaws, as they may be fleeing unlawful punishments, but they can still be pursued under the CL legal system. "Political" criminals fleeing states are probably welcomed and protected.

And hopefully Chev, Willink, et al. can respond to this next one separately:

(4) How does CL apply in the non-commonwealth, non-Prae/Questers/NP anarchies? To what extent to Prae’s answers above hold true in the non-commonwealth countries?

Not a reply but just a comment: I didn't exclude these countries from the commonwealth as such, I just don't know enough about them to comment if they are in the commonwealth or not.

<leis2> Otoh i am also an antiquarian so im legitimately interested in how purple dye was made in sidon<leis2> (using mollusks)

North Point wrote:The North Point Company (the top level association) was founded as a timber cutting venture on the islands and gradually grew to administer all the landmasses that make up the NP archipelago. This leads me to another question: can Associations be derived from a business venture like this? I view the NPC as broadly similar to the East India Company (which had its own private army and basically administered all of India for quite a while in the 1800s).

No reason why not although they aren't in my country. It makes more sense they would be in a colony.

This brings me to the next point: the Great War. Right now I have a vague idea of NP being invaded by the normie powers, but this has never been fully decided. Should this avenue be explored? If so - how would this affect CL in NP?

I have no problem with it but obviously I would not be the one invading you. That is more a question for you and the prospective invader (Quib?) to answer.

<leis2> Otoh i am also an antiquarian so im legitimately interested in how purple dye was made in sidon<leis2> (using mollusks)

Solemnly reaffirming that I am Lawfully bound in service to the Estates-General and its constituent associations, for the purpose of defending the Lawful property of the contributors to the associations of the Estates-General, I place all the powers of my body and mind at the disposal of the Estates-General. Standing ready to sacrifice my life in war against all enemies of the Estates-General alien to Law, I reaffirm the following obligations:

1. That I will observe faithfully and obey all Lawful orders given by the generals and officers set over me, or else suffer death, or such other punishment as a court-martial may impose;

2. That I will do my utmost in all things consistent with such orders to destroy the enemies of the Estates-General alien to Law, and myself adhere to such enemies in no thought or act, or else suffer death, or such other punishment as a court-martial may impose;

3. That I will observe in all things consistent with such orders firm discipline and honest conduct; that I will not strike or otherwise obstruct any general, officer, or warrant officer set over me, or else suffer death, or such other punishment as a court-martial may impose;

4. That I will observe in all things consistent with such orders firm discipline and honest conduct; that I will not strike or otherwise physically assault any person, nor seize, damage, or destroy any property whatever, for private gain or to satisfy private vengeance, or else suffer death, or such punishment lesser than death as a court-martial may impose;

5. That I will observe in all things consistent with such orders firm discipline and honest conduct; that I will observe scrupulous and unflinching honesty in all records and correspondence concerning the administration of the service I may from time to time be required to write and approve, or else suffer death, or such punishment lesser than death as a court-martial may impose;

6. That I will impose no punishment, nor permit any punishment to be imposed, that has not been commanded by a correctly convened court-martial; that a court-martial shall consist of at least three officers, among whom at least one shall be of rank of colonel or higher, of whom none shall be parties to the complaint, and of whom at least two shall not be intimately known to the defendant, and, if circumstances permit, shall be convened under the observation and direction of the Marshal of the Estates-General most directly concerned, and may command only that punishment unanimously agreed, and in accordance with custom in proportion to its severity;

7. That for the enforcement of these essentials of military and naval discipline, I consent to be apprehended and detained in such circumstances as the generals and officers set over me shall consider appropriate, for such time as may be necessary until I can be swiftly delivered to a correctly convened court-martial; that if I should apprehend or detain any person in the service of the Estates-General on grounds that are malicious or manifestly false, I will suffer death;

8. That if I have information that any person in the service of the Estates-General has breached these articles of war, I will make this information public, or pass it to the generals and officers set over me, with no undue delay, or else suffer such punishment lesser than death as a court martial may impose;

9. That, consistent with the demands of the service, I will read aloud these articles of war, or, as an officer, cause them to be read aloud by every man under my command, no less than once per month, in the presence of my comrades.

I invite also the witness and judgement of almighty God on my conduct, and invoke His aid in faithfully discharging the duties assigned to me, that I might by unfailing loyalty, courage, and labour preserve the just Cause that has been entrusted to my care.

<leis2> Otoh i am also an antiquarian so im legitimately interested in how purple dye was made in sidon<leis2> (using mollusks)